John,
Where does this argument lead with respect to the addition of more key
managment techniques in an EnvelopedData. If we add the password based
encryption do you think that we need to up the version number for that?
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Russ
Housley
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:34 PM
To: Pawling, John
Cc: 'ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org'
Subject: RE: S/MIME version number
John:
I respectfully disagree with your statement: "This is
completely parallel to
the public key certificate situation." The v1, v2 and v3
X.509 public key
certificate syntaxes defined in the 1997 and 2000 X.509
Recommendations are
compatible. The Attribute Certificate syntaxes defined in
the 1997 and 2000
X.509 Recommendations are incompatible. The 2000 AC syntax
can't be used to
decode a 1997 AC and vice versa.
I missed your point altogether. Now I get it.
I spoke with Hoyt about this issue at the RSA Conference. Someone is
looking into making them backward compatible. I am not sure
how this will
be sorted out, but I will find out and report back.
Russ